Political Matrix

[Gurn Blanston]

They weren't all that impressive, but I think it was clear that neither side sought to understand the other.

So very true. Even a minimal amount of finding common ground would have probably avoided the whole issue.

[karlhenning]

So much My way or the highway in the air these days.

[DavidRoss]

And in the interest of full disclosure, I am not a professional economist.  I did take my degree in econ years ago, and one of my areas of specialization was monetary theory and policy.  That's why I tire of what so often passes for debate on the subject; basic concepts and facts are ignored, if they are even known.  I do work in the financial sector, though, and have for my entire post-collegiate career.  I've been very close to the sub-prime meltdown.  (I should have done something else with my career!)  So, my opinions are mine alone and may be totally inaccurate.

Well, we all tend to be a bit hasty in our judgments from time to time...which is just one reason it helps to be aware of just how little we really know, sometimes better remembered in areas where we do have some limited expertise than in those we have none!  And the difference between discourse in a professional environment and on an open internet forum can indeed be challenging, even for one who's raised teenagers, worked with hardened felons and drug addicts and the homeless and mentally ill and scientists and engineers and farm workers and academics and artists and new immigrants (documented and otherwise) and even junior high school students!

Thanks for sharing your perspective.  I do have more confidence in Bernanke and the Fed than in many of our other institutions (especially those clowns on Capitol Hill) and it's comforting to hear that one who doubtless knows more than I shares that confidence.

Cheers, dude!

[DavidRoss]

I'm going to assume that you're intelligent enough to see how the things that were posted (by you and some others) could be seen in a very different light.

Well, let's just say that I'm bright enough--and my memory's good enough--to know that some folks here have hidden agenda that color their take on things...

They weren't all that impressive, but I think it was clear that neither side sought to understand the other.

...and that this sort of pronouncement is a case in point.  It was painfully clear that one temperamental party was well understood by all involved but himself and that the other principals conducted themselves civilly and with admirable restraint, making thoughtful allowances as appropriate.

[Saul]

Well said, Saul. Although I should warn you that her opinions on music and audio equipment are equally bizarre and intractable, so you want to avoid those altogether. I'm pretty sure you will be hard-pressed to find something of mutual interest where any opinion offered is not already set in stone. Just sayin'...

That's why I didnt mention music too...

[Teresa]

Its pointless to discuss these things with her, she is not willing to change a single millimeter, of her rock solid rubbish opinions that make no sense, and that's a shame.

WRONG! I have changed much over my life.

• I grew from libertarianism to progressivism.
• Over time I came to accept gay people as lovable human beings who were also created by God.
• I went from no opinion on abortion to being Pro-choice.
• I have always been anti-Porn though as I can see with my own eyes how destructive it has been to society as we have watched its influence grow over the decades.

If someone has good points I always listen.  The Green Party has the best positions I have ever seen in over five decades of studying every political persuasion.  So if someone presents a convincing position I am very willing to adjust my belief system.   

Isn't this the case of most products/services? It is called a free market economy.

Yes, just because they use "sex" to sell products does not make it right.  The media objectified a women's body and then turned it into a way to sell products.  This is MORALLY WRONG!  Products should be sold on their own merits.  Tantalizing human male's most basic instincts causes too many problems in society this is why we need to move back to the moral foundations that made our country great.

Porn diverts sexual energy away from legitimate sexual gratification, which involves personal interaction and risk, further increasing the perceived need for porn.  A vicious cycle.   Similar to junk foods, which give you a sugar hit with no nutrients.

Great post, I agree with this 100%

No surprise. What sane woman would want to marry a porn addict?

Bingo!

[Saul]

WRONG! I have changed much over my life.

• I grew from libertarianism to progressivism.
• Over time I came to accept gay people as lovable human beings who were also created by God.
• I went from no opinion on abortion to being Pro-choice.
• I have always been anti-Porn though as I can see with my own eyes how destructive it has been to society as we have watched its influence grow over the decades.

If someone has a good argument I always listen.  The Green Party has the best arguments I have ever seen in over five decades of studying every political persuasion.  So if someone presents a convincing argument I am very willing to adjust my belief system.   
Yes, just because they use "sex" to sell products does not make it right.  The media objectified a women's body and then turned it into a way to sell products.  This is MORALLY WRONG!  Products should be sold on their own merits.  Tantalizing human male's most basic instincts causes too many problems in society this is why we need to move back to the moral foundations that made our country great.
Great post, I agree with this 100%
Bingo!

Please, the last thing I want to do is to argue with you why its pointless to argue with you.

[Teresa]

Please, the last thing I want to do is to argue with you why its pointless to argue with you.

So don't argue, love is a better emotion.  It works for me, just open up your heart and let the world in.   

I don't like the word argument, and realized I used it incorrectly in my post and substuted the correct words as follows. 

Corrected: "If someone has a good points I always listen.  The Green Party has the best positions I have ever seen in over five decades of studying every political persuasion.  So if someone presents a convincing position I am very willing to adjust my belief system."

Also it is not my job or your job to tell others what to believe, all we can do is present our opinions to the best of our ability.   

[(poco) Sforzando]

Aw, I went for a copy of coffee and missed all the fun.  There really should be a gallery of moderated deleted posts.

I would go for the original next time. Prices are higher at the gallery but it's worth it.

[Saul]

So don't argue, love is a better emotion.  It works for me, just open up your heart and let the world in.   

I don't like the word argument, and realized I used it incorrectly in my post and substuted the correct words as follows. 

Corrected: "If someone has a good points I always listen.  The Green Party has the best positions I have ever seen in over five decades of studying every political persuasion."

Also it is not my job or your job to tell others what to believe, all we can do is present our opinions to the best of our ability.   

Teresa,

Can you do me a favor... please don't talk with me about politics.
Now cooking and baking, shopping and travel are some things I'm sure we can discuss.

[Philoctetes]

Finally, back to the original topic...

Political Cows!! 

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/jokes-rated-g/204481-are-you-a-communist-socialist-capitalist-dont-know-find-out-here.html

[Florestan]

To state it in as basic terms as possible, your concept of '"harm" is much too broad.  Bad consequences that are suffered by others is not harm that allows someone to intervene.  Loss of life or liberty, or the threat thereof, is the necessary threshold.

Who decides this necessity?

People who like power are always attracted to government,  and will use any excuse, including morality, to increase their power over others--and that's the answer to your multifaceted question. 

That's not even the beginning of an answer. Try again, here are the questions:

1. If the governmentally enforced morality is such a bad, unnatural and inhuman thing, then how come that it appeared, in the first place?

2. How come that each and every government under the sun, since the dawn of civilization till present days have done / does it?

3. If libertarianism is such a rational, natural and good scheme, then how come that no civilized society has ever had a government even remotely organized alongside libertarian principles?

4. Was / is the vast majority of mankind just a bunch of fools and were / are the libertarians the only wise and enlightened men?

Being offended is not the same as being harmed.  No one is harmed by it, and that means if decent citizens don't like seeing it, they need to turn their eyes towards something else.

That's one of the greatest libertarian fallacies, to think that harm is only physical, and it stems from the reductionist view of man as a mere property-owner and of society as a mere contract between consenting property-owners.

Given that the best things in life are not related to property (at least not in the libertarian sense) and that society is much more than the total sum of its members (viz. Burke)  there is no surprise that libertarianism never gained the upper hand in the political and economical practice.

You're missing the basic point--the right to a remedy belongs to the people who suffer the harm,not some overarching government.  And if they are harmed, they can deputize someone to act for them--in this case the police.

The democratically elected city council passes a law which prohibits throwing garbage in the streets. The policeman is dutybound to enforce it on spot if it's there. It's common-sense and it happens everyday in any civilized society. Ever visited Switzerland? There you are fined for waving the after-dinner tablecloth in the window, regardless of whether your neighbours saw / reported your act or not, it suffices that a policeman saw you. Do I need to elaborate on what a clean and green country Switzerland is?

And the mayor's job does not include deciding which pubs are nuisances.  The mayor's job is to make sure the streets and sewers are kept in repair, and things of that nature.

The mayor's job is to act in the best interest of the community that elected him. Repairing streets and sewers is of course part of his job, but so is acting on behalf of citizens at their request. It's something called self-government, or democracy.

being noisy late at night is almost a necessary part of being a good bar/pub.

Absolutely. But being noisy late at night inside of a bar is not the same thing as being noisy late at night outside of it, especially if the bar is located right in the middle of a residential area.

If a majority of citizens in that area complains to the city council about a bar being a constant source of noise, garbage and rude behaviour late at night, then the mayor is dutybound to take action. It's the same darn self-government of a community and I'm surprised that a self-avowed libertarian has it in such contempt.

[Florestan]

Finally, back to the original topic...

Political Cows!! 

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/jokes-rated-g/204481-are-you-a-communist-socialist-capitalist-dont-know-find-out-here.html

I especially liked these:

COMMUNIST

You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.

FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.

ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.

[jowcol]

Who decides this necessity?
That's not even the beginning of an answer. Try again, here are the questions:

1. If the governmentally enforced morality is such a bad, unnatural and inhuman thing, then how come that it appeared, in the first place?

2. How come that each and every government under the sun, since the dawn of civilization till present days have done / does it?

3. If libertarianism is such a rational, natural and good scheme, then how come that no civilized society has ever had a government even remotely organized alongside libertarian principles?

4. Was / is the vast majority of mankind just a bunch of fools and were / are the libertarians the only wise and enlightened men?

Some very valid  points here, although I'd say the the libertarian/authoritarian choice is a false dichotomy.  A binary model doesn't begin to address all of the issues.

I may be more of a cynic, but I have about as much trust in a government enforcement morality as I do trusting the better nature of people.  I consider both extremes as potentially dangerous.

As for question 2- would you consider living in a society governed by Old Testament law, strictly enforced, where ever death penalty (including those when other family members must be put to death as well?)  Should stubborn and rebellious sons be put to death?  (Deuteronomy 21:18-22).  There are some other interesting capital offenses as well.

Also, I would say the governments over history have varied widely to the degree that they have enforced morality, and specific moral codes, but yes, they all do it to some degree.

What happens when two moral systems occupy the same space? Religious persecutions have been around as long as there have been theocracies.  (I can cite examples from the time of Joshua, the inquisitions, numerous persecutions of the the Jews, 30 years war, etc).  There has also been bloodletting under secular attempts to enforce moral codes (the height of the Terror in France, the killing fields in Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution, etc. )

I'm certainly not trying to attack any one's faith or moral system here-- but I have a healthy distrust of governments as well.


As much as I rail against the US Government in practice, there are some elements of it I truly love.  The Bill of Rights in particular, since it establishes the rights of a citizen as opposed to the government. The notion of Freedom of Religion is included in the First Amendment, which would prevent the government from establishing a state-sponsored religion, and in any way abridging a citizen's right to follow their faith. 

But there is no magic solution.  Court cases are continually addressing issues about the rights of one individual when they may interfere with those of another, or people "inventing" faiths to cover civil crimes, etc.  There will always be a tension between a libertarian ideal of freedom and the rights of an individual and the need for an government structure to protect people from each other, and the boundaries will be continually tested and tried.   

So, I guess if handed the two choices, I'd have to chart out the middle path between them.

[Florestan]

As for question 2- would you consider living in a society governed by Old Testament law, strictly enforced, where ever death penalty (including those when other family members must be put to death as well?)  Should stubborn and rebellious sons be put to death?  (Deuteronomy 21:18-22).  There are some other interesting capital offenses as well.

That was of course an extreme case and I certainly don't endorse it.

Also, I would say the governments over history have varied widely to the degree that they have enforced morality, and specific moral codes, but yes, they all do it to some degree.

And that's my whole point: never in the recorded history did a society have a libertarian government.

I'm certainly not trying to attack any one's faith or moral system here-- but I have a healthy distrust of governments as well.

A government is just as good or bad as the people who compose it and the laws and general mentality under which it operates.The strictly-structured, highly authoritarian and socially conservative Prussian government offered its citizens a degree of education, prosperity and stability that was the envy of all other states, while the democratically elected, losely structured and socially liberal government of the Second Spanish Republic produced such a mess in society and economy that it took a bloody civil war and forty years of dictatorship, more or less brutal, to fix it up.

But there is no magic solution. 

Precisely.

[DavidRoss]

I've heard politics explained via cows all my life.  Apparently folks have been busy expanding the idea.  This one's from Stanford so it must be correct  :

WORLD IDEOLOGIES EXPLAINED BY REFERENCE TO COWS

FEUDALISM
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

SOCIALISM
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn
with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The
government gives you a glass of milk.

FASCISM
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of
them, and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM
You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker
about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile,
no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of
starvation.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government
takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it
on the black market.

PERESTROIKA
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes
all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the
"free" market.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the
milk.

BUREAUCRACY
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed
them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then
it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the
drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the
missing cows.

CAPITALISM
You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows,
because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.

PURE ANARCHY
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your
neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

ANARCHO-CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica
lessons.

OLYMPICS-ISM
You have two cows, one American, one Chinese. With the help of trilling
violins and state of the art montage photography, John Tesh narrates the
moving tale of how the American cow overcame the agony of growing up in
a suburb with (gasp) divorced parents, then mentions in passing that the
Chinese cow was beaten every day by a tyrannical farmer and watched its
parents butchered before its eyes. The American cow wins the
competition, severely spraining an udder in a gritty performance, and
gets a multi-million dollar contract to endorse Wheaties. The Chinese
cow is led out of the arena and shot by Chinese government officials,
though no one ever hears about it. McDonald's buys the meat and serves
it hot and fast at its Beijing restaurant.

AMERICAN CORPORATE CAPITALISM
Both cows are bloated with toxic steroids. They are set out to graze on
privatized public parks, release massive amounts of flatulence that
destroys the ozone layer, die from excess ultraviolet light, and are
processed into meat-like products that look great as a result of clever
and unprincipled marketing strategies. When you mortgage your
artificially devalued farm at high interest rates in order to buy meat,
you consume the poisoned material and develop terminal illnesses because
there is no health care plan to treat you. The corporate management uses
your purchase price to acquire THEIR meat from cows raised "naturally"
on tree-free rain forest land outside of the country where labor and
resources are cheap.

BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
Both cows are mad

[Philoctetes]

@ DavidRoss

That is a sweet post. Expanded political cows! 

[kishnevi]

Now that we've emerged from the arguments over porn (and thank you for the PM)--

Who decides this necessity?

Reality.  It's usually fairly easy to decide if something is a threat to life or not.  Even if it isn't, it will always boil down to a question of facts.

That's not even the beginning of an answer. Try again, here are the questions:

1. If the governmentally enforced morality is such a bad, unnatural and inhuman thing, then how come that it appeared, in the first place?

2. How come that each and every government under the sun, since the dawn of civilization till present days have done / does it?

3. If libertarianism is such a rational, natural and good scheme, then how come that no civilized society has ever had a government even remotely organized alongside libertarian principles?

4. Was / is the vast majority of mankind just a bunch of fools and were / are the libertarians the only wise and enlightened men?

On the contrary, it's the complete answer:  people in power like power and will use any excuse to stay in power.  Enforcing morality is a handy excuse for staying in power.  But it's taken most of history to get to the point where we can recognize that morality is merely an excuse for power and not a justification for it.

That's one of the greatest libertarian fallacies, to think that harm is only physical, and it stems from the reductionist view of man as a mere property-owner and of society as a mere contract between consenting property-owners.

That's not the libertarian view.  What libertarianism recognizes is that only physical harm can be known as a matter of hard fact to be harmful.  All other claims of harm are subjective and therefore should not be enforced by the government.   Two people having sex in public does not cause any physical harm, and therefore no one has the right to punish or prohibit them.

I will repeat what I said before:  being offended is not being harmed.

Given that the best things in life are not related to property (at least not in the libertarian sense) and that society is much more than the total sum of its members (viz. Burke)  there is no surprise that libertarianism never gained the upper hand in the political and economical practice.

Burke is wrong.  Society is an imaginary construct, and it can never be more than the sum of its individual members.   And only in a libertarian society can you 1) decide for yourself what the best thing in life are 2)decide to how to obtain them  and 3)obtain them without being prohibited by any one else.

The democratically elected city council passes a law which prohibits throwing garbage in the streets. The policeman is dutybound to enforce it on spot if it's there. It's common-sense and it happens everyday in any civilized society. Ever visited Switzerland? There you are fined for waving the after-dinner tablecloth in the window, regardless of whether your neighbours saw / reported your act or not, it suffices that a policeman saw you. Do I need to elaborate on what a clean and green country Switzerland is?

Being the result of a democratic process is does mean an act of government is justified.  In this case, I'd answer that the city council has no right to prohibit garbage.  The garbage thrower's neighbors can sue him for nuisance, but that it's, because no one else is being harmed by his actions.

As for Switzerland--if a country protects child molesters (ie Roman Polanski) and assists in hiding Nazi loot, then you'll forgive me if I don't admire it.  In fact, the anti-littering is a sign of petty minded tyranny.

The mayor's job is to act in the best interest of the community that elected him. Repairing streets and sewers is of course part of his job, but so is acting on behalf of citizens at their request. It's something called self-government, or democracy.

Again, being a democratic process does not justify a law that impinged on the rights of other people.   Such laws are merely the signs of a tyrannical majority.
To quote the definition by Cows:
PURE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the
milk.

Absolutely. But being noisy late at night inside of a bar is not the same thing as being noisy late at night outside of it, especially if the bar is located right in the middle of a residential area.
If a majority of citizens in that area complains to the city council about a bar being a constant source of noise, garbage and rude behaviour late at night, then the mayor is dutybound to take action. It's the same darn self-government of a community and I'm surprised that a self-avowed libertarian has it in such contempt.

Even better, they can sue him for nuisance.  But in my experience complaints of that sort are usually the result of only one or two individuals, not a majority of the community.
What libertarians have in contempt is those people who claim to speak for the community but are in reality only speaking for themselves--and usually one finds that such people are more interested in gaining and using power than in any actual result.

[Florestan]

I've heard politics explained via cows all my life.  Apparently folks have been busy expanding the idea.  This one's from Stanford so it must be correct  :

WORLD IDEOLOGIES EXPLAINED BY REFERENCE TO COWS

FEUDALISM
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

SOCIALISM
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn
with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The
government gives you a glass of milk.

FASCISM
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of
them, and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM
You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker
about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile,
no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of
starvation.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government
takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it
on the black market.

PERESTROIKA
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes
all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the
"free" market.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the
milk.

BUREAUCRACY
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed
them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then
it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the
drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the
missing cows.

CAPITALISM
You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows,
because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.

PURE ANARCHY
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your
neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

ANARCHO-CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica
lessons.

OLYMPICS-ISM
You have two cows, one American, one Chinese. With the help of trilling
violins and state of the art montage photography, John Tesh narrates the
moving tale of how the American cow overcame the agony of growing up in
a suburb with (gasp) divorced parents, then mentions in passing that the
Chinese cow was beaten every day by a tyrannical farmer and watched its
parents butchered before its eyes. The American cow wins the
competition, severely spraining an udder in a gritty performance, and
gets a multi-million dollar contract to endorse Wheaties. The Chinese
cow is led out of the arena and shot by Chinese government officials,
though no one ever hears about it. McDonald's buys the meat and serves
it hot and fast at its Beijing restaurant.

AMERICAN CORPORATE CAPITALISM
Both cows are bloated with toxic steroids. They are set out to graze on
privatized public parks, release massive amounts of flatulence that
destroys the ozone layer, die from excess ultraviolet light, and are
processed into meat-like products that look great as a result of clever
and unprincipled marketing strategies. When you mortgage your
artificially devalued farm at high interest rates in order to buy meat,
you consume the poisoned material and develop terminal illnesses because
there is no health care plan to treat you. The corporate management uses
your purchase price to acquire THEIR meat from cows raised "naturally"
on tree-free rain forest land outside of the country where labor and
resources are cheap.

BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
Both cows are mad

Put it this way, I'll take feudalism over any other any time of the day (or night). 

[Scarpia]

That's not the libertarian view.  What libertarianism recognizes is that only physical harm can be known as a matter of hard fact to be harmful.  All other claims of harm are subjective and therefore should not be enforced by the government.   Two people having sex in public does not cause any physical harm, and therefore no one has the right to punish or prohibit them.

You can type as many philosophical justifications for your "libertarian" philosophy as you please.  I am willing to bet my last dollar that almost no one would be willing to actually live in the "Utopian" paradise you have imagined.  They would flee from it and seek a place where reasonable social norms are enforced.  And I am quite sure that in the unlikely event that such a country ever comes into being, you would not want to live there either.  That is why you have to pay top dollar to buy a house in a community with an active city council that requires people to have neatly trimmed lawns, and why you wouldn't even feel comfortable driving your car through a community where people have sex on their front yards amid piles of garbage. 

I certainly agree that the government should be as unobtrusive as possible with respect to things to go on in private.  But people equally do not want other peoples private or intimate choices to intrude on their lives, and are willing to concede the right to behave certain ways in public in return for the assurance that others will abide by the same rules.

Interesting, if we didn't have the diner I wouldn't even know that you are a raving loon.